Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
Irish Friends vote 'No' for me (please!)
Comments
-
I don't know and because of stupid EU policy we will never find out. Because of the same policy we have Irish decision take as major. There will be no others!Hmm. The question is, is that the majority view? Every country in the EU is a democracy, and time after time, they elect governments that favour a good deal more than "free market and removing borders".
The other question is - if Ireland votes No, is that the 'majority opinion' - or just the slightly majority opinion of a those who actually vote out of, in turn, a tiny minority (1%) of the EU?
Btw. I don't think that democracy is a good system but this doesn't belong here.
This doesn't mean that it is right, right?Well, one wonders how it is, then, that every modern state is centralised - much more centralised than the EU?
It is not centralized now, but it will be in the future if don't stop it. Again, it is not my fault that minority will decide about majority. I didn't set up the rule 'everybody or nobody' and I didn't ban referendums in other countries.It's also slightly ironic that the claim that the EU is too centralised is used as a rallying cry in a referendum held by 1% of the population (physically located on the periphery!) whose outcome will determine the course of said 'over-centralised' institution comprising 500 million.0 -
Thomaas1918 wrote: »I don't know and because of stupid EU policy we will never find out. Because of the same policy we have Irish decision take as major. There will be no others!
Btw. I don't think that democracy is a good system but this doesn't belong here.
This doesn't mean that it is right, right?
It is not centralized now, but it will be in the future if don't stop it. Again, it is not my fault that minority will decide about majority. I didn't set up the rule 'everybody or nobody' and I didn't ban referendums in other countries.
They are not banned, you just do it differently. Every country took a vote on it through their parliament which I presume you voted for. As I suggested to the other chap, take it up with them. It's not the EU's fault you didn't get a referendum.0 -
As Scofflaw has already pointed out, this is absolute nonsense. Why would all the individual member states negotiate a treaty that renders them completely powerless?Self amending means that changes can be made based on the constitution itself, in effect making such changes limitless.
Self amending articles allow the EU to increase it's legislative powers into any area deemed appropriate, increasing the scope of what you really be voting for on the 12th.
So the quote that you originally posted was in fact from The Bruges Group and not from "some of the auditors", as you claimed? Big difference there, don’t you think?
Are they indeed... :rolleyes:I have not conveniently overlooked that paragraph: such concluding paragraphs are common in conclusions meant to deceive.
You seem to be having difficulty separating The Bruges Group from the CAO. Here, let me help:In the actual reports this is what you can find:
EU Unfit for Purpose: So EU Court of Auditors report indicates
The European Union Court of Auditors key assessment on how our money is spent.
In a damning indictment of the Brussels institutions, the clear message of the EU's very own Court of Auditors report is one of fraud, mismanagement and waste.- The Bruges Group is a euro-sceptic think tank which is often associated with the British Conservative Party.
- The European Court of Auditors is a panel of financial experts that examines the revenue, expenditures, management, and overall efficiency of the European Union's bureaucracy.
See the difference?
I fail to see what any of this has to do with Lisbon; you're argument is not terribly convincing. In fact, I'd say you've made me even less likely to vote 'No'.Deceit
But again, you cannot recognize evidence even when it's right in front of you.
Let me give you a
prediction
This has to be the most common reason I've heard for voting 'No'; I cannot understand why so many people have such a hard time accepting the democratic procedures of other EU nations. The treaty cannot be put to a vote across the entire EU because referenda are illegal in certain countries.I believe it is WRONG that we are the only people out of 486 million citizens who will get any say on Lisbon and I believe we should vote "no" out of solidarity with our fellow europeans and tell the political elite to redraw the treaty and put it to the popular vote across ALL of Europe. If ALL of Europe votes "yes" then it can be said to have a mandate.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by a "federation", but a United Europe is unlikely to happen any time soon for the simple reason (as you have pointed out) that the majority of people do not wish it.Thomaas1918 wrote: »I agree that we need to band together but you can't create federation against majority wish.
Dramatically? No, I don't think so.Thomaas1918 wrote: »The problem is that in texts like Lisbon treaty every single comma can dramatically change meaning of the sentence.
It's not a policy I agree with, but it's only temporary.Thomaas1918 wrote: »We joined EU in 2004 but become part of Schengen in Dec 2007. To make long story short - old members are protecting themselves against new members.
What you're asking for is not realistic. Besides, we're not talking about a constitution.Thomaas1918 wrote: »As I said before - constitution should be short and straight forward so (almost) everybody can understand it.0 -
This has to be the most common reason I've heard for voting 'No'; I cannot understand why so many people have such a hard time accepting the democratic procedures of other EU nations. The treaty cannot be put to a vote across the entire EU because referenda are illegal in certain countries.
What countries are referendums not allowed in?
to give my two cents i think people should keep their focus on what the treaty offers to europe instead of thinking about how they feel it is unfair as to why we are the only ones allowed to vote and all that. If you go down that route you will just get lost.
I think people that are undecided should sit down and spend the day before and up until they vote on a chair reading the Treaty with a tea in one hand a a dictionary in the other.
Stay away from radio debates and tv. If you want to discuss the treaty talk with family members. If you really dont understand parts of it go on the internet and head to reliable sources not tainted by bias.
It is very easy to vote no in this treaty, but i feel they are for the wrong reasons. Think of the basic offerings of the treaty and how it can make ireland stronger and Europe stronger. You should not be listening to other countries or peoples views as what you are hearing will only be anti treaty opinions.
The world is changing very quickly and Europe cannot afford to spend another few years trying to convince Individual countries that this constitution/treaty has to be set in stone. Think of the big picture here and have some forseight.
I believe Many are being too conservative in their approach to this and for many it will be a leap of faith to say yes but that leap will be based on previous experience on how the E.U has helped shape the Ireland of today.
Also, I really dont understand how Many people who say they are voting no can turn such a negative eye on Europe after all they have done. Listening to the radio station today i heard very selfish reasons as to why people are voting No. Instead of thinking about Europe and all its members with the different cultures and beliefs, they were thinking about themselves. In some cases thats fair but it has to be balanced out with the positives of the treaty.0 -
I'm voting NO because I am in solidarity with my european neighbours (I'm very pro-Europe) who have been denied the right to vote on this. This document (or 90% of it) has already been REJECTED by two countries at the heart of Europe-the dutch and french said NO and in what has become an EU trend (remember Nice?-I voted yes btw, twice) they have been ignored and the EU constitution rehashed to make sure it wouldn't require the french and dutch electorate to pass it. In my own opinion the document has been carefully constructed to ensure it does not legally require a referendum wherever possible-unfortunately for them our own beloved <cough> Bunreacht is impossible to get around in this regard but our arrogant political leaders (all parties, and no I'm not a shinner!) thought "sure the plebs will vote yes on anyhting". Well maybe we won't this time and a PROPER DISCUSSION across the EU can be opened up instread of what they did when the french and dutch said non/nej!Also, I really dont understand how Many people who say they are voting no can turn such a negative eye on Europe after all they have done. Listening to the radio station today i heard very selfish reasons as to why people are voting No. Instead of thinking about Europe and all its members with the different cultures and beliefs, they were thinking about themselves. In some cases thats fair but it has to be balanced out with the positives of the treaty.0 -
Advertisement
-
Since WWII, there has been no provision in Germany for the holding of referendums at the federal level because a certain Mr. Hitler was quite adept at rigging them. I believe the same is true in Austria. In Italy, it is forbidden to call a referendum for the ratification of international treaties.What countries are referendums not allowed in?
There may be other states I am not aware of that have similar laws.
...which has absolutely nothing to do with Ireland or the EU and is a rather foolish reason to vote 'No', in my opinion.I'm voting NO because I am in solidarity with my european neighbours (I'm very pro-Europe) who have been denied the right to vote on this...
The constitution was approved by 18 other nations; hardly the resounding 'No' that some groups have claimed.This document (or 90% of it) has already been REJECTED by two countries at the heart of Europe-the dutch and french said NO...
What's your opinion on the actual content of the document?In my own opinion the document has been carefully constructed to ensure it does not legally require a referendum wherever possible...0 -
sure the french and the dutch are the biggest complainers in europe anyway:p
But to be honest your reasons for voting "no" seem very wrong. It should be a vote on the treaty and what it offers, nothing else and not what other countries are doing.
If the french and dutch were so negative towards it we would be hearing alot more outcry from them do you not think?0 -
This argument continues to bewilder me.This document (or 90% of it) has already been REJECTED by two countries at the heart of Europe-the dutch and french said NO and in what has become an EU trend (remember Nice?-I voted yes btw, twice) they have been ignored and the EU constitution rehashed to make sure it wouldn't require the french and dutch electorate to pass it.
We voted no to Nice, and the French and Dutch voted no to the Constitution.
Are you suggesting that, on that basis, there should never again be another EU treaty? Or that, if a country rejects a treaty, that every word of it should be deleted and the entire thing carefully redrafted to ensure that there's absolutely no commonality with what was originally rejected?0 -
The EU constitution was accepted by 17 countries as opposed to two. So by your logic, surely we should accept it on behalf of our European brethren.0
-
I disagree that it has nothing to do with the EU but fair enough if you think it's a foolish reason....which has absolutely nothing to do with Ireland or the EU and is a rather foolish reason to vote 'No', in my opinion.
18 other parliaments. Look at our nearest neighbour....joe public is not in favour of this treaty and the government knows full well a referendum there will be resoundly rejected. The danes knew the same but in contrast to other major issues surrounding them and their participation in the project they pushed it through parliament with a large voice of public opposition so claiming that it has the support of everyone else is not true and it's not like every parliamentary vote has been a resounding 'yes' either!The constitution was approved by 18 other nations; hardly the resounding 'No' that some groups have claimed.
I haven't read the entire treaty. I have read the referendum commission literature and so on. I agree with some sections of it (charter of human rights being enshrined in law for example). I disagree with other sections including the rotation of commissioners so a country will only have a commissioner for 10 out of 15 years. I disagree with a common defence policy and believe this is aimed squarely at building the weapons industry in Europe to rival the americans. What most concerns me is this....what's wrong with the status quo? I think the EU has already expanded too far and believe Lisbon will allow even further expansion more easily.What's your opinion on the actual content of the document?0 -
Advertisement
-
No, but why not throw the 90% back to the french and dutch and see do they agree that it is sufficiently altered to warrant a 'yes' vote. It seems to me the treaty of Lisbon has been kept away from as many electorates as possible-why?oscarBravo wrote: »This argument continues to bewilder me.
We voted no to Nice, and the French and Dutch voted no to the Constitution.
Are you suggesting that, on that basis, there should never again be another EU treaty? Or that, if a country rejects a treaty, that every word of it should be deleted and the entire thing carefully redrafted to ensure that there's absolutely no commonality with what was originally rejected?0 -
Look at our nearest neighbour....joe public is not in favour of this treaty and the government knows full well a referendum there will be resoundly rejected.
.
Britain is not really a good example here. Beyond the corridors of power and business Britain has never shown any great love for the EU. I amazed that they are still in the EU and I would even suggest that a referendum to exit the EU would be passed by a very large margin.0 -
Should they be offered that referendum?is_that_so wrote: »Britain is not really a good example here. Beyond the corridors of power and business Britain has never shown any great love for the EU. I amazed that they are still in the EU and I would even suggest that a referendum to exit the EU would be passed by a very large margin.0 -
Well, if we apparently should turn it away on behalf of our European brethren, as many here seem to spout, then its not that different is it?The EU constitution was accepted by 17 countries as opposed to two. So by your logic, surely we should accept it on behalf of our European brethren.0 -
-
The reduction in the size of the commission was agreed in the Nice treaty. The mechanism wasn't.I disagree with other sections including the rotation of commissioners so a country will only have a commissioner for 10 out of 15 years.
Lisbon created a mechanism whereby the larger countries are equally affected by this reduction as the smaller ones. If we reject Lisbon, the commission gets reduced in 2009 instead of 2014. Do you think we'll get as good a deal next year?
Because of the plethora of utterly stupid reasons people come up with for voting against it, as can be seen here in Ireland. People will vote no as a protest against the government, because of fears about immigration, to prevent abortion, to keep our commissioner - none of which have any bearing on the treaty.No, but why not throw the 90% back to the french and dutch and see do they agree that it is sufficiently altered to warrant a 'yes' vote. It seems to me the treaty of Lisbon has been kept away from as many electorates as possible-why?
If I thought people would make an intelligent and informed choice on the merits of the treaty, I'd be all in favour of letting them vote on it.0 -
A short while ago, the following initiative was launched to fight the massive EU state and protect democracy and national sovereignty:
Dear Irish friends and friends of Europe,
I am a citizen of a EU member state. In my country, we have not been allowed to vote on the future of Europe. You, our friends in Ireland, alone have this right and are called to vote on the "Lisbon Treaty" on June 12th.
I reject this Treaty as undemocratic in conception and in content. Please, vote NO on this Treaty for me
http://www.irish-friends-vote-no-for-me.org/index.php?set_language=en&cccpage=sign_petition
Some companies are also protesting, this one is currently advertising on board.ie: http://freemontgroup.com/index.php?page=page/newsletter/news9.php
Why the Lisbon Treaty is bad for your wallet and your freedom- European legislation supercedes national legislation; what the Lisbon Treaty will change in effect is that it takes away all rights of member states to veto a proposal, thus making it impossible for one member state to object to any detrimental legislation that might be proposed by another member state.
- Ireland's low tax rates are key for making it one of the richest countries in the world. Most EU member states however have higher tax rates than Ireland. Countries like Germany and France have repeatedly stated that they oppose tax competition, opposing in effect Ireland and other members. Already the European commission is working on a unified EU corporate tax rate. Recently it has been postponed untill after the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty by all member states.
- The Lisbon Treaty will give the EU the possibility to extend their legislative powers into any political area. It is therefore only a matter of time before all issues will be centrally decided, including national taxation policies.
- As we speak, the European Union is already a major bureaucracy with huge overhead and without any control over its funds. The EU accounts have not been properly audited for many years. As this organisation grows, it is unlikely to become any more efficient, meaning that less money will be available to sustain Irish schools, hospitals, social services and infrastructure.
- The Lisbon Treaty is for 99% the same as the EU Constitution which was voted down in France and the Netherlands. European MP's have admitted that the Lisbon Treaty is a deliberate unreadable version of the old constitution, in order to retain the substance but avoid referenda and opposition. In other words, it is a cynical attempt to hide the fact that this treaty will end national sovereignity of the member states.
Need any more reasons to vote no?
Check out this Irish website and click on the little picture next to the intro: http://www.caeuc.org
how dare you voice your opinion on the lisbon treaty, your government is the only body entitled to make this decision for you (i feel for you and hope for a no vote too, just being a little sarcastic )0 -
Can anyone please give me a good, reasonable and accessible argument for voting YES?
I have read as much of the debate as I can decipher. I have to say that the NO campaign, outside of the predictable Sinn Féin anti-everything dross, offers quite a lot of convincing argument. I am sure much of it is scaremongering, but quite an amount of it is very well constructed and expounded. In particular, a recent radio interview with Declan Ganley very decidedly swung me in favour of voting NO.
On the other hand, Dermot Ahern, in the same radio interview, speaking for the Government YES campaign, for me failed either to refute the NO argument, or to offer any kind of substantive argument for voting YES, other than because the state 'tells' me to. Alas, the very political machine that is campaigning for my YES vote have profoundly failed to convince me of their honesty or credibility in matters pertaining to the running of our own small corner of Europe. Years of lies, squandered boom, and more lies, mean that I am unlikely to take seriously any statement made by a member of the main political parties, on any side of the issue.
This leaves me in the situation where I have a very convincing argument for voting NO, and a YES campaign that has singularly failed to convince me that it is anything other than a hall of smoke and mirrors. Vote YES because we tell you to and because we know what's good for you. I'm sorry, but I need an awful lot more than that. YES campaigners work very hard explaining that NO campaigners tell lies (I'm sorry, but that coming from Fianna Fáil?), yet fail to explain, in plain language, what a YES vote will mean in any substance for me.
I am in the NO camp, and I wait to be convinced otherwise.0 -
Can anyone please give me a good, reasonable and accessible argument for voting YES?
I have read as much of the debate as I can decipher. I have to say that the NO campaign, outside of the predictable Sinn Féin anti-everything dross, offers quite a lot of convincing argument. I am sure much of it is scaremongering, but quite an amount of it is very well constructed and expounded. In particular, a recent radio interview with Declan Ganley very decidedly swung me in favour of voting NO.
On the other hand, Dermot Ahern, in the same radio interview, speaking for the Government YES campaign, for me failed either to refute the NO argument, or to offer any kind of substantive argument for voting YES, other than because the state 'tells' me to. Alas, the very political machine that is campaigning for my YES vote have profoundly failed to convince me of their honesty or credibility in matters pertaining to the running of our own small corner of Europe. Years of lies, squandered boom, and more lies, mean that I am unlikely to take seriously any statement made by a member of the main political parties, on any side of the issue.
This leaves me in the situation where I have a very convincing argument for voting NO, and a YES campaign that has singularly failed to convince me that it is anything other than a hall of smoke and mirrors. Vote YES because we tell you to and because we know what's good for you. I'm sorry, but I need an awful lot more than that. YES campaigners work very hard explaining that NO campaigners tell lies (I'm sorry, but that coming from Fianna Fáil?), yet fail to explain, in plain language, what a YES vote will mean in any substance for me.
I am in the NO camp, and I wait to be convinced otherwise.
The shortest, straightest answer I can give to that is that the main reason for voting Yes is the increase in democracy on offer. The Treaty:
1. extends the legislative control of the elected Parliament to 95% of EU legislation
2. allows national parliaments to send back EU legislation they feel is more properly handled at the national level
3. enshrines a petition mechanism that allows citizen movements to place items on the Commission agenda
In addition, making combating climate change an objective of the EU is a pretty big seller for me.
I've seen the first argument dismissed as "well, the EP is just a talking shop" - to which the answer is "no, it has to pass legislation for legislation to be passed, which is the opposite of a talking shop". The second argument gets called "window dressing", but no real reason is given why it should be window dressing. The same argument is applied to the third - the petition mechanism - largely, it seems, because we don't have a petition mechanism here, so we don't think they work.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
The shortest, straightest answer I can give to that is that the main reason for voting Yes is the increase in democracy on offer. The Treaty:
1. extends the legislative control of the elected Parliament to 95% of EU legislation
2. allows national parliaments to send back EU legislation they feel is more properly handled at the national level
3. enshrines a petition mechanism that allows citizen movements to place items on the Commission agenda
In addition, making combating climate change an objective of the EU is a pretty big seller for me.
I've seen the first argument dismissed as "well, the EP is just a talking shop" - to which the answer is "no, it has to pass legislation for legislation to be passed, which is the opposite of a talking shop". The second argument gets called "window dressing", but no real reason is given why it should be window dressing. The same argument is applied to the third - the petition mechanism - largely, it seems, because we don't have a petition mechanism here, so we don't think they work.
cordially,
Scofflaw
well they are hardly going about it in the most democratic fashion are they?
1)So it will give the eu more 'control' over our lives? How is this democratic?
2)Is this not already the case, if not where in lisbon is this stated?
3)citizen movement is already entiteled in the eu
as far as combating global warming goes, that will mean more taxes (part of that eu control you were talking about i guess)0 -
Advertisement
-
well they are hardly going about it in the most democratic fashion are they?
1)So it will give the eu more 'control' over our lives? How is this democratic?
Ah - now I finally understand what people are misunderstanding here! No, the increase of Parliament's right to refuse/amend legislation is only relevant to EU legislation - not member state legislation. It will reduce the amount of EU legislation, because it makes it possible for MEPs to refuse more of it on behalf of voters.2)Is this not already the case, if not where in lisbon is this stated?
Respectively, no, and the Protocol On The Role Of National Parliaments In The European Union (if you have the consolidated versions, you can search for "INFORMATION FOR NATIONAL PARLIAMENTS").3)citizen movement is already entiteled in the eu
You are confusing "a citizens' movement" with "freedom of movement for citizens", I'm afraid.as far as combating global warming goes, that will mean more taxes (part of that eu control you were talking about i guess)
Tax would be up to the national governments. Emissions reduction targets and alternative energy policy are the EU's instruments.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
1)So it will give the eu more 'control' over our lives? How is this democratic?
You've completely misunderstood what Scofflaw was saying. The power resides with the Councils and the Commission now, the Lisbon treaty will transfer some of this power to the directly elected European parliament.2)Is this not already the case, if not where in lisbon is this stated?
No, atm national parliaments can debate EU legislation and make comments on it but it is a courtesy. The Lisbon treaty will enshrine this in law and allow national parliaments to delay legislation for 8 weeks. The cam also send back legislation that does not comply with the principle of subsidiary.3)citizen movement is already entiteled in the eu
But a petition system which makes the Commission pay attention does not!as far as combating global warming goes, that will mean more taxes (part of that eu control you were talking about i guess)
The EU already has some say on indirect taxation i.e VAT. This is the type of tax that is levied on fuel and energy so the EU can have an impact here. All decisions made in this area are made by unanimous vote in the council and Ireland has a veto. The EU has absolutely no say over direct taxation such as corporate tax and income tax, to do so would require another referendum in this country.0 -
As Scofflaw has already pointed out, this is absolute nonsense. Why would all the individual member states negotiate a treaty that renders them completely powerless?
The same old thing that has driven politicians since the beginning of time: greed. They believe that with the creation of an all powerful super state they can rule even more. In fact prime ministers/presidents around Europe are dreaming right now about being the president of Europe (juncker (Lu) Balkenende (NL) TonyBlair)
I did not make this up - this is confirmed by the EU politicians themselves, again, just read my quotes:
” It is true that we are experiencing an ever greater, inappropriate centralisation of powers away from the Member States and towards the EU. The German Ministry of Justice has compared the legal acts adopted by the Federal Republic of Germany between 1998 and 2004 with those adopted by the European Union in the same period. Results: 84 percent come from Brussels, with only 16 percent coming originally from Berlin … Against the fundamental principle of the separation of powers, the essential European legislative functions lie with the members of the executive … The figures stated by the German Ministry of Justice make it quite clear. By far the large majority of legislation valid in Germany is adopted by the German Government in the Council of Ministers, and not by the German Parliament … And so the question arises whether Germany can still be referred to unconditionally as a parliamentary democracy at all, because the separation of powers as a fundamental constituting principle of the constitutional order in Germany has been cancelled out for large sections of the legislation applying to this country … The proposed draft Constitution does not contain the possibility of restoring individual competencies to the national level as a centralisation brake. Instead, it counts on the same one-way street as before, heading towards ever greater centralisation … Most people have a fundamentally positive attitude to European integration. But at the same time, they have an ever increasing feeling that something is going wrong, that an untransparent, complex, intricate, mammoth institution has evolved, divorced from the factual problems and national traditions, grabbing ever greater competencies and areas of power; that the democratic control mechanisms are failing: in brief, that it cannot go on like this.”
- Former German President Roman Herzog and former president of the German Constitutional Court, article on the EU Constitution, Welt Am Sonntag, 14 January 2007
“Are we all clear that we want to build something that can aspire to be a world power? In other words, not just a trading bloc but a political entity. Do we realise that our nation states, taken individually, would find it far more difficult to assert their existence and their identity on the world stage.”
- Commission President Romano Prodi, European Parliament, 13 February 2001
So the quote that you originally posted was in fact from The Bruges Group and not from "some of the auditors", as you claimed? Big difference there, don’t you think?
overlooked that, not that it matters much. Anyone with a basic understanding of financials can read the auditors report and see it's a mess.Are they indeed... :rolleyes:
Look, I quote all these politicians admitting they have deceived their people and still you don't believe me? man, you're really lost...You seem to be having difficulty separating The Bruges Group from the CAO. Here, let me help:- The Bruges Group is a euro-sceptic think tank which is often associated with the British Conservative Party.
- The European Court of Auditors is a panel of financial experts that examines the revenue, expenditures, management, and overall efficiency of the European Union's bureaucracy.
See the difference?
The quotations in that article are from the rapport itself, being sceptic does not imply making things up (like the scare mongering on of the 'yes' kamp)I fail to see what any of this has to do with Lisbon; you're argument is not terribly convincing. In fact, I'd say you've made me even less likely to vote 'No'.
It doesn't really matter who's debating you and how much proof is being thrown into your face, you have been brainwashed. That is what this source is all about. It's not your fault, schools are public for a reason, media isn't state controlled for nothing, so please don't feel offended, you just cannot help it. Let's just hope it won't go as far as soldiers' boots kicking people in camps even though it might give you a reality check.0 -
It doesn't really matter who's debating you and how much proof is being thrown into your face, you have been brainwashed. That is what this source this is all about. It's not your fault, schools are public for a reason, media isn't state controlled for nothing, so please don't feel offended, you just cannot help it. Let's just hope it won't go as far as soldiers' boots kicking people in camps even though it might give you a reality check.
My eyes...they're opening...
Jews...everywhere...0 -
-
The same old thing that has driven them since the beginning of time: greed. They believe that with the creation of an all powerful super state they can rule even more. In fact prime ministers/presidents around Europe are dreaming right now about being the president of Europe (juncker (Lu) Balkenende (NL) TonyBlair)
I did not make this up - this is confirmed by the EU politicians themselves, again, just read my quotes:
I appreciate that you didn't make this up. However, perhaps you might choose to read your quotes again, since they don't prove the point you appear to think they prove.
The idea that virtually every member of every parliament in Europe is dreaming of being "President of Europe" is pretty ridiculous. For a start, Europe is actually used by most EU governments as a "dumping ground" for failed politicians. They're not dreaming of Europe - they fear it might happen to them.
As to EU heads of state dreaming of it - the position is actually President of the European Council. Currently that's on rotation between the heads of state you claim are "dreaming of it". Sarkozy will be President in the second half of this year, for example.
Once in a while, you should at least check in with reality. Even if you don't fancy that, there are still far better conspiracy theories on offer than the ones you're peddling here - even if Libertas agree with you on some of them.
really,
Scofflaw0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »Who's doing the scaremongering?
Had you actually seen my source you would have understood why I made this remark.0 -
It doesn't really matter who's debating you and how much proof is being thrown into your face, you have been brainwashed. That is what this source is all about. It's not your fault, schools are public for a reason, media isn't state controlled for nothing, so please don't feel offended, you just cannot help it. Let's just hope it won't go as far as soldiers' boots kicking people in camps even though it might give you a reality check.
I am also assuming that your belief in the truth of the No vote is on the basis that you actually know what the consequences of rejection will be. A little less condescension and hyperbole might also help in trying to win hearts and minds.0 -
The idea that virtually every member of every parliament in Europe is dreaming of being "President of Europe" is pretty ridiculous.
No it's not:
WHAT TOP EU POLITICIANS SAY ABOUT THE LISBON TREATY/ EU CONSTITUTION
(These quotations are in chronological order backwards)
“France was just ahead of all the other countries in voting No. It would happen in all Member States if they have a referendum. There is a cleavage between people and governments… A referendum now would bring Europe into danger. There will be no Treaty if we had a referendum in France, which would again be followed by a referendum in the UK.”
- French President Nicolas Sarkozy,at meeting of senior MEPs, EUobserver, 14 November 2007
_______
“The difference between the original Constitution and the present Lisbon Treaty is one of approach, rather than content … The proposals in the original constitutional treaty are practically unchanged. They have simply been dispersed through the old treaties in the form of amendments. Why this subtle change? Above all, to head off any threat of referenda by avoiding any form of constitutional vocabulary … But lift the lid and look in the toolbox: all the same innovative and effective tools are there, just as they were carefully crafted by the European Convention.”
- V.Giscard D’Estaing, former French President and Chairman of the Convention which drew up the EU Constitution, The Independent, London, 30 October 2007
______
‘ “I think it’s a bit upsetting… to see so many countries running away from giving their people an opportunity”, Irish prime minister Bertie Ahern said on Sunday 21 October, according to the Irish Independent. ‘If you believe in something …why not let your people have a say in it. I think the Irish people should take the opportunity to show the rest of Europe that they believe in the cause, and perhaps others shouldn’t be so afraid of it,’ he added. “
- Taoiseach Bertie Ahern, EU Observer, Brussels, 22 October 2007
______
“They decided that the document should be unreadable. If it is unreadable, it is not constitutional, that was the sort of perception. Where they got this perception from is a mystery to me. In order to make our citizens happy, to produce a document that they will never understand! But, there is some truth [in it]. Because if this is the kind of document that the IGC will produce, any Prime Minister - imagine the UK Prime Minister - can go to the Commons and say ‘Look, you see, it’s absolutely unreadable, it’s the typical Brussels treaty, nothing new, no need for a referendum.’ Should you succeed in understanding it at first sight there might be some reason for a referendum, because it would mean that there is something new.”
- Giuliano Amato, former Italian Prime Minister and Vice-Chairman of the Convention which drew up the EU Constitution, recorded by Open Europe, The Centre for European Reform, London, 12 July 2007
_____
“Sometimes I like to compare the EU as a creation to the organisation of empires. We have the dimension of Empire but there is a great difference. Empires were usually made with force with a centre imposing diktat, a will on the others. Now what we have is the first non-imperial empire.”
- Commission President J-M Barroso, The Brussels Journal, 11 July 2007
_____
“Public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly … All the earlier proposals will be in the new text, but will be hidden and disguised in some way.”
- V.Giscard D’Estaing, Le Monde, 14 June 2007, and Sunday Telegraph, 1 July 2007
____
” The most striklng change ( between the EU Constitution in its older and newer version ) is perhaps that in order to enable some governments to reassure their electorates that the changes will have no constitutional implications, the idea of a new and simpler treaty containing all the provisions governing the Union has now been dropped in favour of a huge series of individual amendments to two existing treaties. Virtual incomprehensibilty has thus replaced simplicity as the key approach to EU reform. As for the changes now proposed to be made to the constitutional treaty, most are presentational changes that have no practical effect. They have simply been designed to enable certain heads of government to sell to their people the idea of ratification by parliamentary action rather than by referendum.”
- Dr Garret FitzGerald, former Irish Taoiseach, Irish Times, 30 June 2007
_____
“The substance of the constitution is preserved.That is a fact.”
- German Chancellor Angela Merkel, speech in the European Parliament, 27 June 2007
_______
The good thing is that all the symbolic elements are gone, and that which really matters - the core - is left.”
- Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Danish Prime Minister, Jyllands-Posten, 25 June 2007
_______
“The substance of what was agreed in 2004 has been retained. What is gone is the term ‘constitution’ “.
- Dermot Ahern, Irish Foreign Minister, Daily Mail Ireland, 25 June 2007
______
“90 per cent of it is still there…These changes haven’t made any dramatic change to the substance of what was agreed back in 2004.”
- Irish Taoiseach Bertie Ahern, Irish Independent, 24 June 2007
____
“The aim of the Constitutional Treaty was to be more readable; the aim of this treaty is to be unreadable … The Constitution aimed to be clear, whereas this treaty had to be unclear. It is a success.”
- Karel de Gucht, Belgian Foreign Minister, Flandreinfo, 23 June 2007
____
“The good thing about not calling it a Constltution is that no one can ask for a referendum on it.”
- Giuliano Amato, speech at London School of Econmics, 21 February 2007
____
“Referendums make the process of approval of European treaties much more complicated and less predictable … I was in favour of a referendum as a prime minister, but it does make our lives with 27 member states in the EU much more difficult. If a referendum had to be held on the creation of the European Community or the introduction of the euro, do you think these would have passed?”
- Commission President Jose M. Barroso, Irish Times, 8 Feb.2007; quoting remarks in Het Financieele Dag and De Volkskrant, Holland; also quoted in EUobserver, 6 February 2007
_____
” It is true that we are experiencing an ever greater, inappropriate centralisation of powers away from the Member States and towards the EU. The German Ministry of Justice has compared the legal acts adopted by the Federal Republic of Germany between 1998 and 2004 with those adopted by the European Union in the same period. Results: 84 percent come from Brussels, with only 16 percent coming originally from Berlin … Against the fundamental principle of the separation of powers, the essential European legislative functions lie with the members of the executive … The figures stated by the German Ministry of Justice make it quite clear. By far the large majority of legislation valid in Germany is adopted by the German Government in the Council of Ministers, and not by the German Parliament … And so the question arises whether Germany can still be referred to unconditionally as a parliamentary democracy at all, because the separation of powers as a fundamental constituting principle of the constitutional order in Germany has been cancelled out for large sections of the legislation applying to this country … The proposed draft Constitution does not contain the possibility of restoring individual competencies to the national level as a centralisation brake. Instead, it counts on the same one-way street as before, heading towards ever greater centralisation … Most people have a fundamentally positive attitude to European integration. But at the same time, they have an ever increasing feeling that something is going wrong, that an untransparent, complex, intricate, mammoth institution has evolved, divorced from the factual problems and national traditions, grabbing ever greater competencies and areas of power; that the democratic control mechanisms are failing: in brief, that it cannot go on like this.”
- Former German President Roman Herzog and former president of the German Constitutional Court, article on the EU Constitution, Welt Am Sonntag, 14 January 2007
_______
“If it’s a Yes, we will say ‘On we go”, and if it’s a No we will say ‘We continue.’”
- Jean-Claude Juncker, Luxembourg Prime Minister and holder of the EU Presidency, Daily Telegraph, 26 May 2005
________
“The Constitution is the capstone of a European Federal State.”
- Guy Verhofstadt, Belgian Prime Minister, Financial Times, 21 June 2004
_____
“Are we all clear that we want to build something that can aspire to be a world power? In other words, not just a trading bloc but a political entity. Do we realise that our nation states, taken individually, would find it far more difficult to assert their existence and their identity on the world stage.”
- Commission President Romano Prodi, European Parliament, 13 February 20010 -
Advertisement
-
is_that_so wrote: »I am also assuming that your belief in the truth of the No vote is on the basis that you actually know what the consequences of rejection will be. A little less condescension and hyperbole might also help in trying to win hearts and minds.
Should Ireland vote 'No' they will probably use the same old tactic as they did with the Nice treaty: hold referendums until Brussels gets the desired answer.
Maybe they will take the effort of renaming it one more time.0
Advertisement